alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008051EN.01005401.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/54

---

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Wella v OHIM (TAME IT)

(Case T-471/07)

(2008/C 51/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wella AG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: B. Klingberg, K. Sandberg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | That the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 24 October 2007 in Case R 713/2007-2 be annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

That the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 24 October 2007 in Case R 713/2007-2 be annulled;

| — | that the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark concerned: The international word mark ‘TAME IT’ for goods in Class 3 (international registration No 879 186) — request for EC territorial extension of protection in accordance with the Madrid Protocol

Trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal on absolute grounds for all the goods applied for

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partly upheld the appeal and allowed the EC territorial extension of the protection of international registration No 879 186 to proceed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 40/94.

Pleas in law:

According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal based its decision on a purely theoretical philological analysis of the mark applied for with regard to grammar, composition and spelling rules as well as structure and syntax of the trade mark applied for, completely leaving aside the overall impression of the mark to the average consumer.

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**Certifications**
I, Timothy R. Eller, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Centex Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)] andinternal control over financial reporting [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)] for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation;and
(d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
Date: May 26, 2005
 /s/ TIMOTHY R. ELLER
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  100TH ANNIVERSARY OF IBEW LOCAL 110

                                  _____
                                 

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 25, 2012

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the 100th 
anniversary of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 
(IBEW) Local Union 110 in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and the hundreds of 
working families the union represents.
  IBEW Local 110 has earned an honored place in the Minnesota labor 
tradition. From the earliest days of the union, even before its formal 
charter on July 29, 1912, Minnesota electrical workers began banding 
together to form an organization that would help protect workers and 
their families. These efforts provided a voice for workers and began 
the roots of a new local union.
  Membership in the new Local 110 proved valuable for workers and their 
families. The union set a standard for all workers in our state and 
provided much needed resources for safety, skills training, fair wages 
and retirement security. This support became even stronger through 
Local 110's decision to affiliate with the allied unions of the Saint 
Paul Building Trades Council.
  Times were at once exciting and challenging for early Minnesota 
electrical workers. From 1910 to 1913, sixty of their fellow brothers 
died due to illness and accidents caused by frequently dangerous work 
environments. In order to combat the alarmingly high number of deaths 
within the industry, Local 110 began its first apprenticeship program 
to educate its members, and made sure that they were properly protected 
in the field. During June of 1913, the first test for those members 
that worked with electricity was held, and all members were required to 
take the examination. Through the efforts of the local union, every 
member passed the test.
  International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 110 has always 
made sure their members were given the highest standard of care and 
consideration. Today, this band of brothers now includes sisters too. 
Local 110 has grown to represent 2100 members in 13 counties of 
Minnesota. The union remains focused on creating positive relationships 
between workers and their employees as well as elevating the standards 
within the industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit this extension of remarks to 
honor the members and families of the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers Local Union 110 on the occasion of the 100th 
anniversary of this proud union.

                          ____________________
```
#### Vernon NIX, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Gladys CHAMBERS, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 4352.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 18, 1974.

*590Ronald W. Hofer, of Leimback, Aspin-wall & Hofer, Casper, for appellant.

Fred W. Layman, Casper, for appellee.

Before PARKER, C. J., and McEWAN, GUTHRIE, McINTYRE, and Mc-CLINTOCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

It has been alleged in this case that a dog named “Max,” which belonged to Gladys Chambers, was shot and killed with a 22-caliber bullet; also, that medical expense on the dog amounted to $35. The owner, accusing Vernon Nix, defendant, of killing the dog, brought suit for damages.

No transcript of the evidence has been submitted and there has been no compliance with Rule 75(c), W.R.C.P. Thus, there is nothing before us upon which a decision can be based. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

The appellee requests that we invoke the provisions of Rule 72(k), W.R.C. P., and assess costs and penalties against the appellant. We are unable to certify that there was reasonable cause for the appeal. Accordingly, it appears to be mandatory that there shall be taxed as part of the costs in this case, a reasonable attorney’s fee of not less than $25 nor more than $300. In compliance with this provision, we fix the attorney’s fee to ■ be paid by appellant to appellee in the amount of $100, which shall be added as a part of the costs and penalties to be paid by appellant.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Encorium Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Kai Lindevall, M. D. Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/S/ Dr. Kai Lindevall, M.D., Ph.DDr. Kai Lindevall, M.D., Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





April 30, 2010





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
CERTIFICATION
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Dennis Calvert, certify that:

1 I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of NuWay Medical, Inc.;

2 Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report.

3 Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4 The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
     being prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation ; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
     fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting;

5 The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
     summarize and report financial information ; and

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting. Date: August 12, 2003


                                      -25-
<PAGE>

/s/ Dennis Calvert
----------------------------
Dennis Calvert, President,
Chief Executive Officer and
Interim Chief Financial Officer





                                      -26-
Exhibit 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements listed below of Gehl Company of our report dated February 12, 1996
appearing on page 8 of the 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders which is
incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule,
which appears on page 15 of this Form 10-K.

     1.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-38392)

     2.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-39150)





PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 6, 1996
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 – Stepek v OHIM – Masters Golf Company (GOLF-FASHION
MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN)**

**(Case T-294/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark ‘GOLF-FASHION MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN’ – Earlier national figurative mark ‘The Masters GOLF COMPANY’ – Withdrawal of appeal brought before the Board of Appeal – Costs incurred before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Allocation of costs (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 81(3) and (6), and 89(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1,
Rule 94(3) and (7)(d)(vi)) (see paras 29-35)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2007 (Case R 95/2007‐1) concerning opposition proceedings between The Masters Golf Company Ltd and Mr Wilhelm Stepek. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Wilhelm Stepek |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark GOLF-FASHION MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN for goods in Classes 3, 9, 12, 18, 24, 25 and 28 – Application No 3136041 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | The Masters Golf Company Ltd |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National figurative mark The Masters for goods in Class 25 and figurative mark The Masters GOLF COMPANY (Community mark No 1582535) for goods in Classes 12, 25 and 28 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld and application dismissed for goods in Classes 12, 25 and 28 |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mr Wilhelm Stepek to pay the costs. |
19279

#### Toledo v. GTE Hawaiian Telephone Co., Inc.

Affirmed
EX-32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of ECO2 Plastics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Raymond M. Salomon,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





By: /s/ Raymond M. Salomon


Raymond M. Salomon


Chief Financial Officer





August 18, 2009





[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ECO2 Plastics, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
# C_2021035EN.01000601.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-49/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications - Universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Networks and services - Article 13 - Financing of universal service obligations - Sharing mechanism - Principles of transparency, least market distortion, non-discrimination and proportionality)

(2021/C 35/07)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented: initially by L. Nicolae, P. Costa de Oliveira and G. Braga da Cruz, and subsequently by L. Nicolae and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, P. Barros da Costa and J. Marques, acting as Agents, and D. Silva Morais, advogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000880580
<NAME>                          Enex 90-91 Income & Retirement Fund - Sr 3, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         54106
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  38236
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               87431
<PP&E>                                         962796
<DEPRECIATION>                                 472343
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 577884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          38
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     577846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   577884
<SALES>                                        186485
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186485
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  61748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               29354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   95383
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### State v. Shak

16660

12/22/94

Affirmed
# C_2021019EN.01000602.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 –Ralph Pethke v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-382/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Official - Internal reorganisation of the services of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) - Redeployment - Article 7 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Covert penalty - Interests of the service - Equivalence of posts - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the facts - Psychological harassment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union)

(2021/C 19/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ralph Pethke (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ralph Pethke to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ralph Pethke to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---